I think this has a long way to go yet. Bush's strategy is to totally isolate Saddam Hussein, both in the eyes of the world community and from his own people and military. This is an eminently attainable goal, given the hand Bush holds, and we are already seeing rapidly accelerating progress in that direction. If and when it becomes appropriate, as the nature of the standoff becomes explicit, Bush can also evacuate Baghdad with the flick of a wrist -- e.g. by the simple expedient of putting nuclear bombers over the city, 24x7. Bush can also start taking the country apart, in a reprise of the Afghan strategy, without directly threatening Saddam's survival and bringing things to the brink.
So, there are plenty of levers to pull. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that this will be enough to get Saddam out without a catastrophe. If it isn't, we could be in for a very long stand-off, because Bush isn't going to gamble losing New York or Washington, DC by attacking Saddam directly, not IMHO.
This is a nightmare situation, no question about it. Thanks, Bubba.
Bush's strategy is to totally isolate Saddam Hussein, both in the eyes of the world community and from his own people and military. This is an eminently attainable goal, given the hand Bush holds, and we are already seeing rapidly accelerating progress in that direction. If we can pull this off, fantastic. We are certainly making progress.
But I do not think this will be sufficient to dislodge Saddam.
We are in a position that REQUIRES us to act if something does not change. President Bush has thrown down the gauntlet, and cannot back down without losing all credibility forever.
I agree, it seems highly unlikely our President would risk losing New York or DC unless the alternative was even worse. We may be there.
Churchill was willing to gamble London -- in 1939, people had an exaggerated view of the danger from bombers. Hitler was willing to gamble Berlin and Hamburg.